The USA Today last Friday had some interesting comments in an article on recent basketball season. Since basketball season is still fresh in our thinking, what future impacts will the recent ACC and Big East expansion have on future basketball for both leagues?

Since football was the driving force for ACC expansion last year, could basketball have more future impact on both the ACC and Big East?

What will happen to former Big East flagship schools of St John's and Georgetown trying to rebuild with new coaches and having to deal with the arrival of Lousiville, Cincinnatti, Depaul, Marquette and South Florida? The Big East was already perceived to be one of the strongest basketball leagues in the nation.

Will Va Tech and Miami hurt the future ACC in basketball?

How will the BE align with 16 teams? Would divisions be better or all 16 teams play one regular season game? Could this decision have impacts on a future split between basketball and football schools? Will the Big East just let the strong survive and through process of elimination provide a method to get the conference back to a more manageable size?

Can Miami ever get basketball to the same level as football?

Will St John's and Georgetown drop out of the Big East and join the Patriot league?

Will Villanova ever upgrade to division 1 football and become the 9th BE football member?

Football may make more money, however, both the ACC and Big East have major stakes in keeping future basketball revenue at current levels.

I think the Impact will vary...I think that the Big East will probably set up divisions...they will have about 8 or 9 teams get into the tournament...they will be a great basketball conference...i don't see them splitting seperately from fb and bb, it will probably be the most powerful basketball conference.

The ACC will still be a great basketball league...Miami, VT and Boston College will all HAVE to elevate their recruiting and level of play to compete with Duke, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Maryland, NC State, and Wake Forest...it is not a downgrade for either conference...The Big East definitely got a boost in basketball, and the ACC got a boost in Football.

Lash, thanks for raising the topic again. It will be interesting to see thoughts on this now that this bball season is behind us and we're closer to seeing what's in store with the coming changes. For now I'll speak only on the ACC as I know more about them then the BE. But to be sure, both leagues will be fun in the future and I can't wait to see what the BE does with their new members. It's a shame that there's little chance of many home-and-home games with those teams! We should review this again next spring, indeed.

Will Miami and VT hurt ACC basketball? The summ total I see is no, but it doesn't help much, either. Miami and BC (I suspect) will only damage the rep of the ACC tournament by cutting into the ticket allotment for the closer, basketball hungry schools. Proposals abound for curing this, but at least nothing will be the same. And while both of those schools have shown moments of roundball success, neither has set the world on fire.

Miami - If they sell out their new arena it's still only around 7,000 people. Not bad in this day and age, but it puts the enthusiasm for this program in perspective, especially knowing the students there aren't crafting a Cameron-like atmosphere. The AD's have feigned serious intentions to improve their performance, but it says here Miami's program will over time serve as fodder for previous conference doormats FSU and Clemson. Not bad, but no where near the support of other league programs.

VT - Potential is the word everyone is using and why not; Having found conference stability after a decade of moving around, the Hokies made their first BE tournament last year and fans should support the club on local trips like NC, Clemson and Maryland. Bottom line, VT has said this marriage would make their program come alive. This is the school that will help the conference amidst fans on the street by solidifying "ACC country," and you can sense rivalries already exist. If the fan support carries over from football, the facilities are decent enough for this program to be safe.

BC - The academic kinship that sold this relationship doesn't necessarily translate into on-court rivalries, but at least BC comes with a fair basketball pedigree in a basketball town. What's done is done, so to make this work BC will have to make some noise in the conference. Fortunately I think they will, to a degree similar with what they've done in the BE. Good facilities, knowledgeable fans and they're familiar with the work needed to succeed at this level. BC wouldn't have made this move if they didn't also intend to compete.

For the conference as a whole, things are looking bright. The concept of Miami and VT feeding the success of the other programs may not be far fetched: After taking NCAA tournament games into consideration, no team lost more than 5 games out of conference! Clemson, NC State, Wake and UVA have made or are making serious investments in facilities. I expect accommodations to be made for tournament ticketing and perhaps an 18 game conference schedule to ensure more home and home series. In the end, the core group of schools that has fostered this aura of ACC basketball will make sure it doesn't go away, so the conference will at least always be considered among the best.

How will the BE align with 16 teams? Would divisions be better or all 16 teams play one regular season game?

Since the standard conference schedule is 16 games, and since the BE is just one big blob of a non-divisional conference right now, I'd expect them to do a complete round-robin with eight pairs of teams who play each other twice. I don't know if these pairings should be permanent or rotating--I'd say rotate them.

with sixteen teams and a standard 16 game conference schedule, this is my solution. play everyone once, which would give you fifteen games, and then give each school a designated rival that they would play twice. this would work out quite well and protect some home and home series. here is my listing for rivals

ACCSeahawk, I agree with your round robin rivals for the future 16 member BE basketball conference. I do think the BE will need to go to an 18 game schedule for BB and here is the reason why. The BE should not move rivals around between two divisions as this got the old 16 member WAC in trouble. Two divisions and 16 game schedule may need to be changed to four divisions and 18 game schedule. All teams would play one game against the other division teams and round robin for each member in the division for a total of 18 games.

NorthEast div: Syracuse, Gtown, UConn, Providence

NY Metro div: Seton Hall, Rutgers, St John's, Notre Dame

Midwest div: Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette, Depaul

South div: Pittsburgh, WVU, Villanova, South Florida

The bottom team of each division would not make the tournament and allow for the 12 teams to advance to NY Madison Square Garden and not have to change the current format that has every game on TV.

Now that BCS membership is secured, basketball alignement is probably the last hurdle the new BE must resolve to finally get past last years ACC expansion.

Well maybe one more on how to get a 9th football member for balanced schedules.

Order of preference for 9th football member:

1st Notre Dame in for all sports
2nd Villanova upgrade
3rd Navy or Army

Once the Big East resolves the 16 member basketball alignment, the rest will fall into place. A split is just not in the cards and the above four division alignment will help to manage the conference and not have too difficult of a time for a bottom dweller to make the basketball tournament every couple of years.

Another day to discuss how the ACC should align on basketball divisions. The ACC is not out of hot water yet and will need to ensure balance in strength at the same time maintain the old rivals the made the ACC so great in the past for basketball.

The ACC got what they wanted - a post-season, revenue bonanza championshp game. Already they have upgraded the revenue from their TV football contract - albeit split 12 ways instead of 9. Beyond that, I don't see any benefit for them from this move. In fact, they run the risk of inheriting the Big East's problem - championship domination by Miami & VPI and this in a conference wher the chances of winning that championship are now 1 in 12 instead of the more favorable 1 in 9. The other downside of this move for the ACC is that 2 of the 3 teams are in existing ACC territory, intensifyint recruiting competition in those states. It's crowded in those ACC & SEC states.

The good news for the Big East is that they keep their BCS bid for the present. Had they lost that, this would have been an unmitigated disaster for them. Now Big East football members have a real oppportunity. Someone besides Miami & VPI will win the conference's BCS spot. However, if they don't consistently rank in the top 12, they will eventually be dumped.It will be interesting to see if they can seize the opportunity. My guess is that someone in the conference will.

The other piece of good news for the Big East is that they didn't let expansion impinge on anyone's existing territory, so they won't be competing against each other for local recruits. They were smart to extend their footprint. The bad news is that they went too far with expansion. 14 was too big. 16 is just way too big. It's hard to see how you manage this thing for basketball. Your 4-team disvisions make a lot of sense. Bottom line in basketball is the opposite of the small size good news in football. If teams get left out of the NCAA tournament because the committee doesn't want to give too many bids to one league, you'll see pressure for the conference to break up again - & this time in won't be from the football schools.

I agree with the comment that 2 8-team divisions could give impetus to the perception of 2 leagues & take the sting away if a lot of bids going to one conference. The thing that may help reduce the complaining is that these are a well established programs that have been getting bids for years anyway.

My question is how did 16 games come to be regarded as the "standard?" I know that a lot of coaches like it & that the Big East reduced its schedule to 16 games. But how can it be standard when 2 of the top basketball conferences in the country - Big 10 & Pac 10 - play 18 games schedules last I looked.

It is going to get down right nasty in the ACC/SEC tier of states. I had not considered your point on requiting wars. It is going to be fun watching some southern mud slinging. The ACC has no other choice but follow the same tatics as the SEC or they will fall behind. The SEC is famous for back stabbing its own members. Part of the Alabama probabtion was caused to some degree by one of the other SEC teams.

The ACC would have been better taking only Miami. The TV contract would probably have produced the same results or at least the same level of revenue with 10 teams sharing the pie versis 12.

Agreed that 16 is not the standard for conference basketball games. The Pac 10 has always played an 18 game regular season shedule with 10 teams.

I dont think the Big East will have an issue with 18 conference games. I think at one time the Big East had a regular 18 game conference scheudle for a couple of seasons.

The teams may not do it, however, still beleive the best long term option for the Big East is to split into two 8 team divisions broken down by the fb and bb and following the Gavitt plan is by far the best alignment.

If the conference expands to 18 regular season games there would be four cross over games and would allow every team to play the other divisions every two years or there could be regular cross over games (i.e Syracuse/Georgetown or Syracuse/St Johns).

2) BC-UConn-Providence were together in both previous divisional alignments

3) isn't that where the BIG EAST offices are located?

4) perhaps a DePaul-Marquette-Notre Dame-South Florida rotation...none of those schools have geographic/historical (basketball) ties with other programs...note that all of the current BIG EAST "basketball" schools are Catholic; only one current "football" school is non-public...

Also, the WAC-16 (and to a lesser extent C-USA) examples served to discredit the alternating (WAC used "quadrants") and multipolar divisional models (original C-USA featured Red, White, and Blue four-team divisions)...

Ruiner, I agree that something like this will happen, but I don't expect it to be peranent pairs. Rather, I expect them to match up "feature games" (made for TV) each year. Pairings will be based on TV appeal, i.e. who is expected to be good that year. This may even force them to go to an 18 game schedule. This will enable them to continue the concept they starte this year, i.e. the top 4 teams playing Home/home against each other, etc. down the pecking order.

Agreed. I am more in favor of the "unitary model" currently in use by both the BIG EAST and C-USA. Also, to correct an earlier post, Providence was separated from both Boston College and UConn under the ill-fated "BIG EAST 6/7" alignment. Also, when is the Big XII going to stop pretending that it doesn't employ divisions for men's basketball?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum